Judge  Slough' s  Full 

Decision,  as  prepared  "by 

himself,  in  the  first 

trial  of  the  Chuj?ch  of  the 

United  Brethren  in  Christ  vs. 

the  Seceders  from  said 


BX9675 
.A5ff4 


mm- 


hSdA 


,AB  er^-1        Warfield  Library 

Judge  Slough's  Full  Decision, 


AS  PREPARED  BY  HIMSELF, 


RIRST   TRIAL 


<^i-mi,i  st»*> 


HURCH  OF  IH[  United  Brethren  in  Christ 


vs. 


THE  SECEDERS  EROM  SAID  CHURCH. 


Court  of  Common  Ipleaa, 

NEW   LEXINGTON,    PERRY  CO.,   OHIO, 
October   2-3,  1889. 


DAYTON,  OHIO: 
United  Brethren  Publishing  House, 

1889. 


f/ 


JUDGE  SLOUGH'S   FULL  DECISION, 

AS   PREPARED    BY    HIMSELF. 


THOMAS   L.  GRIGGS  AND  OTHERS  )  ^^  the  Court  of 

Common  Pleas 
OF  Perry  Co.,  0., 
DAVID  MIDDAUGH  AND  OTHERS.  )      Case  No.  2170. 


vs. 


SLOlIGl^,    JUDGE. 

i 


The  question  involved  in  this  case  is  one  of  title  to  certain 
real  estate  described  in  the  petition,  which  was  purchased  by 
the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  in  1851,  and  the 
title  conveyed  in  trust  to  certain  persons  named  in  the  deed 
and  their  successors  in  office  forever  for  the  use  of  that 
Church. 

It  is  conceded  that  the  title  to  the  property  in  controversy 
is  held  by  the  Church  at  large ;  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the 
local  congregation  at  Junction  City,  this  county;  and  that  it 
is  held  by  the  trustees  of  that  local  congregation  for  said 
Church  at  large.  Each  of  the  contending  parties  claims  to  be 
the  lawful  trustees,  and  to  hold  it  for  the  parties  respectively 
represented  by  them  as  the  true  Church  of  the  United  Breth- 
ren in  Christ. 

The  controversy  arose  because  of  certain  action  of  the 
General  Conferences  held  in   the  years  1885  and  1889  ( the 


latter  at  York,  Pa.,  May,  1889,)  respecting  the  proposal  and 
submission  by  the  former  and  the  adoption  by  the  latter  of 
an  amended  constitution  and  a  revised  confession  of  faith  for 
the  Church. 

After  participating  several  days  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
last  named  Conference,  and  discussing  and  voting  upon  the 
adoption  of  those  instruments,  fifteen  of  the  one  hundred  and 
thirty  delegates  composing  that  Conference,  with  Bishop 
Wright  as  one  of  their  number  at  their  head,  because  of  the 
adoption  of  those  instruments  (  by  the  votes  of  one  hundred 
and  ten  delegates  for,  and  the  votes  of  only  twenty  delegates 
against  them),  withdrew  from  that  Conference  and  consti- 
tuted themselves  into  a  separate  "  conference  "  at  another  hall 
in  another  part  of  the  city  of  York.  The  General  Conference 
(of  1889)  proceeded  and  completed  its  business,  and  the 
separate  "  conference  "  proceeded  and  completed  the  business 
that  came  before  it.  Each  of  these  bodies,  with  their  respec- 
tive adherents,  claims  to  be  the  true  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ,  and  as  such  entitled  to  the  property  of  the 
Church  for  the  uses  for  which  the  Church  holds  it. 

Jn  this  case  the  plaintiffs  represent  the  General  Conference 
of  1889  and  its  adherents,  and  ^the  defendants  represent  those 
who  seceded  from  that  General  Conference  and  their  followers ; 
and  the  contest  is  as  to  which  of  these  contending  parties 
shall  have  the  Church  property  above  referred  to.  The 
plaintiffs  claim  that  the  defendants,  and  those  whom  they 
represent,  are  no  longer  members  of  the  Church  of  the 
United  Brethren  in  Christ ;  that  they  have  put  themselves, 
or  have  been  put,  without  the  pale  of  that  Church;  and 
that,  therefore,  they  have  no  just  or  lawful  claim  to  the 
title  or  use  of  the  property  of  the  Church.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  defendants  claim  that  the  Church,  as  represented 
by  the  plaintiffs,  because  of  its  alleged  perversion  of  the  trust 


upon  which  the  Church  property  is  held,  has  no  rightful 
claim  to  the  property  or  its  further  use ;  and  that  the  property 
and  its  use  should  be  decreed  to  the  Church  as  represented  by 
the  defendants.  Hence,  the  main  question  in  this  case  is  :  Has 
there  been  by  the  Church,  as  represented  by  the  plaintiffs,  a 
'perversion  of  the  trust  upon  which  the  Zion  Church  property  at 
Junction  City  was  granted  to  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ? 

It  is  claimed  by  the  defendants  that  this  alleged  perver- 
sion of  the  trust  results  from  the  action  taken  by  the  above- 
mentioned  General  Conferences,  especially  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1889,  respecting  the  adoption  of  the 
amended  constitution  and  the  revised  confession  of  faith  for 
the  Church,  which  action  the  defendants  allege  was  uncon- 
stitutional, illegal,  and  arbitrary.  Now,  does  the  action  of 
these  General  Conferences  in  the  matters  s^pecified  work  a 
perversion  of  this  trust?  Civil  courts  can  have  jurisdiction 
of  a  case  like  this  only  upon  the  question  of  the  perversion 
of  a  trust.  In  the  inquiry  whether  there  has  been  a  per- 
version of  a  trust  such  as  is  involved  in  this  ca?e,  civil 
courts  may  look  into  the  question  whether  an  ecclesiastical 
body,  like  the  General  Conference  of  this  Church,  has,  in  its 
action,  transcended  its  powers  or  jurisdiction  as  a  legislative, 
judicial,  or  executive  body.  Civil  courts  may,  as  this  court 
apprehends  the  law,  look  into  and  determine  the  question 
whether  there  has  been,  by  the  action  of  such  body,  a  sub- 
stantial and  evident  departure  in  essential  matters  of  faith; 
since  such  action  would  affect  the  ti;:le  to  the  property  held 
by  the  Church  for  its  uses.  But  such  departure  must  be  from 
essential  faith,  and  must  be  obvious— not  reasonably  open  to  con- 
troversy. For  illustration  :  Should  a  General  Conference  of 
the  Church  strike  out  of  its  confession  of  faith  the  second 
and  third  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  so  as  to  make  the  faith 


6 

Unitarian,  here  would  be  such  a  substantial  and  obvious  de- 
parture as  would  work  a  perversion  of  the  trust  upon  which 
the  church  property  is  held. 

The  civil  court  may  examine  and  say  whether  the  General 
Conference  of  this  Church  proceeded  in  an  obviously  illegal  and 
arbitrary  manner — in  a  manner  evidently  in  disregard  of  its  plain 
organic  law  (its  constitution)— to  amend  its  constitution  and 
change  in  essentials  of  doctrine  its  confession  of  faith.  This 
court  is  of  the  opinion  that  amendments  to  the  constitution 
and  changes  in  the  essentials  of  the  faith  should  be  made 
agreeably  to  the  organic  law.  But  the  general  rule  is  that 
the  doctrinal  decisions  and  judicial  constructions  (of  church 
constitution  and  legislation  under  it)  of  the  highest  judicatory 
of  a  church  are  binding  upon  the  civil  courts,  and  the  latter 
have  no  power  to  review  or  reverse  them.  Upon  this  point 
the  following  authorities  are  cited  : 

In  the  case  of  Watson  vs.  Jones,  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  and  reported  in  13  Wallace,  679  to  733,  the  court  on 
page  727  of  opinion  says:  "In  this  class  of  cases  we  think  the  rule  of 
action  which  should  govern  the  civil  courts,  founded  in  a  broad  and 
sound  view  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State  under  our  system  of 
laws,  and  supported  by  a  preponderating  weight  of  judicial  authority,  is 
that  whenever  the  questions  of  discipline,  or  of  faith,  or  ecclesiastical 
rule,  custom,  or  law  have  been  decided  by  the  highest  of  these  church- 
judicatories  to  which  the  matter  has  been  carried,  the  legal  tribunals 
must  accept  such  decisions  as  final  and  as  binding  on  them  in  their  ap- 
plication to  the  case  before  them." 

Farther  along  in  the  opinion  the  court  says:  "The  right  to  organize 
voluntary  religious  associations  to  assist  in  the  expression  and  dissemi- 
nation of  any  religious  doctrine,  and  to  create  tribunals  for  the  decision 
of  controverted  questions  of  faith  within  the  association,  and  for  the 
ecclesiastical  government  of  all  the  individual  members,  congregations, 
and  officers  within  the  general  association,  is  unquestioned.  All  who 
unite  themselves  to  such  a  body  do  so  with  an  implied  consent  to  this  govern- 
ment, and  are  bound  to  submit  to  it.  But  it  would  be  a  vain  consent  and 
would  lead  to  the  total  subversion  of  such  religious  bodies  if  anyone 
aggrieved  by  one  of  their  decisions  could  appeal  to  the  secular  courts 
and  have  them  reversed." 


There  is  much  more  said  in  the  opinion  in  that  case  that  bears  upon 
the  determination  of  the  questions  in  this  case.  The  same  rule  is  laid 
down  by  High  on  Injunctions  (last  edition),  Section  810,  etc.;  45  Ameri- 
can, 449;  41  Pennsylvania  State,  9;  45  Missouri,  183;  89  Indiana,  I'M). 

Harrisou  vs.  Hoyle,  21  Ohio  State,  294. 

GaflF  vs.  Greet,  88  Ind..  122. 

Potter  on  Corporations,  vol.  2,  709  etc  ,  719,  720. 

Walker  vs.  Wainwright,  16  Barb..  486. 

Robertson  vs.  Bullions,  9  Barb..  64. 

German  Ch.  vs.  Seibert,  3  Pa.  St.,  282. 

Shannon  vs.  Frost,  3  B.  Mon.,  253. 

Gibson  vs.  Armstrong,  7  B.  Mod.,  481. 

Hale  vs.  Everett,  53  N.  H.,  2. 

Terraria  vs.  Vasconce,  23  111.,  403. 

Harmon  vs.  Dreher,  1  Speer  Equity,  87. 

German  Ref.  Ch.  vs.  Seibert,  3  Barr.,  282. 

McGinnis  vs.  Watson,  41  Pa.  St.,  1. 

Chase  vs.  Cheney,  58  111.,  509. 

"The  civil  courts  act  upon  the  theory  that  the  ecclesiastical  courts 
are  the  best  judges  of  merely  ecclesiastical  questions  and  of  all  matters 
which  concern  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  respective  denomina- 
tions to  which  they  belong. 

"  Where  a  schism  occurs  in  an  ecclesiastical  organization  which  leads 
to  a  separation  into  distinct  and  conflicting  bodies,  the  respective  claims 
of  such  bodies  to  the  control  of  the  property  belonging  to  the  organiza- 
tion must  be  determined  by  the  ecclesiastical  laws,  usages,  cu.stoms, 
principles,  and  practices  which  were  accepted  and  adopted  by  the  organ- 
ization before  the  division  took  place." 

The  White  Lick  Quaker  case,  89  Indiana,  136. 

"Tlie  principle  may  now  be  regarded  as  too  well  established  to 
admit  of  controversy,  that  in  case  of  a  religious  congregation  or  ecclesi- 
asiical  boly.  which  is  in  itself  but  a  subordinate  member  of  some  gen- 
eral church  organization,  having  a  supreme  ecclesiastical  judicatory  over 
the  entire  membership  of  the  organization,  the  civil  tribunals  must 
accept  the  decisions  of  such  judicatory  as  final  and  conclusive  upon  all 
questions  of  faith,  discipline,  and  ecclesiastical  rule." 

High  on  Injunctions,  vol.  1.  Section  310,  314. 


8 

Judge  Owens,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Ohio,  in  the  case  of  Mannix  vs.  Purcell,  not  yet  reported,  but  found  in 
Law  Bulletin,  vol.  21,  on  page  76,  says:  "It  has  been  held  that  where 
a  religious  body  becomes  divided,  and  the  right  to  the  property  is  in 
conflict,  the  civil  courts  will  consider  and  determine  which  of  the 
divisions  submits  to  the  church  local  and  general.  This  division  is  en- 
titled to  the  property.  In  determining  which  of  the  divisions  has  main- 
tained the  correct  doctrine,  the  findings  of  the  supreme  ecclesiastical 
tribunal  of  the  denomination  in  question  are  binding  upon  the  civil 
courts."     [See  authorities  cited  by  Judge  Owens  in  this  case.] 

Now,  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  is  a  per- 
fectly organized  society.  It  has  its  houses  of  worship,  its 
burial  grounds,  etc.  (its  property),  its  congregations,  its  pastors, 
its  bishops,  its  quarterly  conferences,  its  annual  conferences, 
and  its  General  Conference.  The  General  Conference  of  the 
Church  is  its  supreme  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
body.  The  Church  possesses  the  element  or  quality  of  unity 
and  the  power  of  perpetuity^  and  such  a  society  can  no  more  be 
affected  by  the  withdrawal  of  a  faction  of  its  members  than 
the  universe  can  be  destroyed  by  the  disappearance  or  extin- 
guishment of  some  of  Heaven's  lesser  luminaries.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Church  is— to  quote  and  adopt  from 
the  decision  of  Chief  Justice  Gibson  in  the  great  Presbyterian 
Church  case — "a  homogeneous  body,  uniting  in  itself,  with- 
out separation  of  parts,  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
functions  of  the  Church  government,  and  its  acts  are  referable 
to  one  or  the  other  of  them,  according  to  the  capacity  in  which 
it  sat  when  they  were  performed." 

Commonwealth  vs.  Green,  4  Wheat,  531. 

All  persons  becoming  members  of  the  Church  of  the  United 
Brethren  in  Christ  not  only  accept  its  constitution  and  con- 
fession of  faith  as  they  are  when  they  enter  the  Church,  but 
they  either  expressly  or  tacitly  consent  to  such  changes  in 
either  as  this  supreme  authority  of  the  Church  shall  lawfully 
make. 


9 

Now  what  of  the  General  Conferences  of  1885  and  18S1)  of 
this  Church,  and  what  of  the  action  of  each  respecting  the 
amended  constitution  and  the  revised  confession  of  faith? 
It  is  admitted  that  these  General  Conferences  were  lawfully 
constituted.  No  question  is  or  has  been  made  touching  the 
validity  of  the  election  or  credentials  of  the  delegates  respect- 
ively composing  these  General  Conferences.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  and  has  been  conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  delegates  to 
these  General  Conferences  were  regularly  and  lawfully  chosen, 
certified  and  commissioned.  It  is  also  practically  admitted 
that  the  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  of  1889  were 
elected  with  especial  reference  to  the  action  taken  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1885  and  the  action  to  be  taken  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1889  respecting  the  amended  con- 
stitution and  the  revised  confession  of  faith.  The  constitu- 
tion of  1841  (in  force  up  to  1889)  expressly  provided  for  its 
amendment ;  and  it  is  granted  in  argument  by  counsel  for 
defendants  that  changes  even  in  the  essentials  of  the  faith 
may  be  made  after  changing  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
so  as  to  provide  the  mode  or  manner  of  altering  the  confession 
of  faith.  This  court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  amendment  of 
the  constitution  and  the  revision  of  the  confession  of  faith 
(which  were  made)  could  lawfully  be  made  at  the  same  time- 
But  it  is  contended  that  the  constitution  of  1841  provided 
that  it  might  be  amended  only  upon  "the  request  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  whole  society,"  and  that  the  amended  constitu- 
tion and  the  revised  confession  of  faith  were  made  and  adopted 
without  the  required  request  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  so- 
ciety, indeed  without  any  request  of  the  society.  Now  is  it 
true,  either  in  law  or  in  fact,  that  the  constitution  was  amended 
and  the  confession  of  faith  revised  without  the  request  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  whole  society  that  the  same  be  done?  Is  not  the 
precise  contrary  true,  that  both  were  done  regularly  and  law- 


10 

fully  ii|)on  the  express  request  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole 
society  ?  What  was  done  by  the  General  Conference  of  1885 
toward  the  amendment  of  the  constitution  and  the  revision 
of  the  confession  of  faith?  The  General  Conference  of  1885 
appointed  a  committee  to  formulate  an  amended  constitution 
and  a  revised  confession  of  faith,  to  he  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
entire  membership  of  the  Church  at  an  election  to  be  held  after  full 
and  due  published  notice  thereof  and  of  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment  and  revision.  Such  proposed  amended  con- 
stitution and  revised  confession  of  faith,  together  with  notice 
of  such  election,  were  fully  and  duly  published,  and  such 
election  was  regularly  and  duly  held.  The  clergy  and  the 
press  of  the  Church  made  diligent  and  urgent  effort  to  secure 
a  full  vote  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  Church.  All  had 
opportunity  to  vote,  and  the  election  was  in  every  way  free 
and  fair.  The  result  of  the  election  was :  For  the  amended 
constitution  and  the  revision  of  the  confession  of  faith,  50,685 
votes ;  against,  3,659,  being  14  votes  for  to  one  vote  against. 
Certainly  the  members  who  abstained  from  voting  have  no 
just  cause  to  complain  of  this  result. 

What  followed  this  election  ?  Were  the  proposed  amended 
constitution  and  revised  confession  of  faith  at  once  declared 
adopted?  No.  They,  with  the  vote  thereon,  were  fully  and 
dul}'  reported  to  the  General  Conference  of  1889,  and  the 
same  were,  by  that  body,  with  full  freedom,  duly  considered, 
discussed,  voted  upon,  adopted,  and  declared  as  the  amended 
constitution  and  the  revised  confession  of  faith  of  the  Church, 
and,  as  ordered  by  that  body,  the  same  were  published  and 
proclaimed  by  the  bishops  of  the  Church  as  its  amended 
constitution  and  revised  confession  of  faith.  Their  adoption, 
etc.,  was  by  a  vote  of  110  delegates  for  to  the  vote  of  20 
delegates  against. 

Now,  liere  was  a  positive,  express  request ^to  the  General 
Conference  of  1889.    Certainly  no  valid  objection  can  be  made 


11 

to  this  convenient  and  proper  forvi  of  request.  lUit  defendants 
complain  that  of  the  208,000  niem})ers  of  the  Church  only 
about  54,000  vo<ed  at  the  election,  whereas  the  constitution 
of  1841  required  the  request  of  two  thirds  of  the  "  whole 
society"  to  authorize  amendment  of  the  constitution,  etc.; 
and  that,  since  54,000  votes  are  not  two-thirds  of  208,100 
votes,  therefore,  the  request  required  by  that  constitution  was 
not  made.  The  trouble  with  the  position  of  the  defendants 
upon  this  point  is  that  it  is  not  well  taken.  The  practical  and 
lawful  construction  of  the  provision  in  the  constitution  of 
1841  for  its  amendment  is  that  if  the  form  of  expressing  surli 
request  is  by  a  vote  of  the  membership  of  the  Church  at  nn  election 
held  for  that  purpose,  ''  two-thirds  of  the  whole  society  "  means  in 
law  two-thirds  of  all  those  voting  at  such  election.  To  repeat : 
Largely  more  than  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  voting  at 
the  election  voted  intelligently  and  understandingly  for  the 
amended  constitution  and  the  revised  confession  of  faith. 
This  was  in  law  the  valid  request  of  more  than  "two-thirds 
of  the  whole  society."  This  is  according  to  the  legal  and  only 
practical  rule  in  such  cases.  It  is  held  by  the  courts  that, 
where  an  amendment  to  a  State  constitution  is  submitted  to 
a  vote  of  its  electors  for  adoption,  under  a  requirement  that  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  in  the  State  must  be  for  such 
amendment  to  effect  its  adoption,  such  requirement  is  com- 
plied with  if  at  such  election  a  majority  of  all  the  electors 
voting  vote  for  such  amendment.  The  same  rule  obtains 
respecting  elections  held  in  counties  and  in  townships  for  the 
adoption  of  acts  of  the  State  legislature.  See  the  following 
authorities : 

St.  Joseph  VH.  Rogers,  16  Wallace,  644  and  663-4,  and  author- 
ities there  cited. 
Wardens  of  Christ  Cli.  vs.  Pope,  8  Gray,  140-3. 
Richardson  vs.  S  )ciety,  58  N.  H.,  188-9. 
State  vs.  Swift,  69  Ind.,  505. 


12 

Green  vs.  Waller,  32  Miss.,  850. 

Prob.  Anit  cases,  24  Kans.,  700. 

Dayton  vs.  St.  Paul,  22  Minn.,  400. 

Miiler  vs.  English,  21  N.  J.,  317. 

Mad.  Av.  Ch.  vs.  Bap.  Ch.  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.),  234. 

95  U.S.,  369. 

1  Sneed  (Tenn.),  690-692. 

20  111.,  159-163. 

20  Am.  Corp.  cases,  93. 

48  III.,  262 

10  Minn.,  87. 

22  Minn.,  53. 

Said  Judge  Mcllvaine  in  Harrison  vs.  Hoyle,  21  Ohio  State,  269: 
•'  All  members  of  the  society  are  included,  because,  if  not  present,  par- 
ticipating in  the  action  of  the  meeting,  their  absence  was  voluntary,  and 
hence  there  is  no  ground  for  complaint." 

That  the  constitution  was  lawfully  amended  is,  in  view  of 
the  authorities,  quite  beyond  controversy,  and  that  the  revis- 
ed confession  of  faith  was  made  and  adopted  in  accordance 
with  the  organic  law  of  the  Church  seems  to  the  court  equally 
indisputable.  In  the  judgment  of  the  court  the  revision 
makes  no  changes  in  the  essentials  of  the  old  confession  of  faith. 
The  modifications  made  are  not  substantial  or  material,  but 
are  merely  improvements  in  the  form  and  style  of  expression. 
The  substance  of  the  faith  remains  the  same.  Certain  articles 
were  added  to  the  old  confession  of  faith,  but  these  added  art- 
icles only  embody  and  express  doctrinal  matters,  not  set  forth 
in  the  old  confession  of  faith,  of  not  only  common  but  of  uni- 
versal belief  in  the  Church  ever  since  its  foundation.  There 
is  nothing  whatever  in  any  of  these  added  articles  that,  to  any 
extent,  clashes  or  conflicts  with  any  doctrinal  matter  in  the  old 
confession  of  faith. 

The  records  of  the  Church,  which  are  in  evidence,  show 
that  up  to  the  General  Conferences  of  1885  and  1880,  no  con- 
stitution, or  confession  of  faith,  or  rule  of  discipline,  was  ever 


13 

submitted  for  adoption  to  a  vote  of  the  membership  of  the 
Church.  Prior  to  these  General  Conferences,  all  such  matters 
were  acted  upon  as  within  the  absolute  control  of  the  General 
Conference — all  was  formulated  and  adopted  by  that  body 
alone.  But  the  General  Conferences  of  1885  and  1889,  more 
clearly  appreciating  their  high  duties,  and  more  regardful  of 
the  rights  and  consciences  of  all  the  members  of  the  Church, 
lawfully  and  ver}^  properly  prepared  the  way  and  provided 
the  means  of  taking  the  sense  and  voice  of  the  whole  mem- 
bership of  the  Church  upon  the  questions  of  amending  its 
constitution  and  revising  its  confession  of  faith ;  and  having 
lawfully  taken  the  sense  and  voice  of  the  membership  upon 
these  questions,  the  General  Conference  of  1889  proceeded 
accordingly,  and  in  a  constitutional  manner,  to  adopt  and 
declare  the  amended  constitution  and  the  revised  confession 
of  faith,  and  the  bishops  of  the  Church,  as  lawfully  author- 
ized, published  and  proclaimed  the  same  as  such.  In  taking 
this  action,  the  clause  in  the  constitution  of  1841,  providing 
for  its  amendment,  was  construed  by  the  General  Conferences 
of  1885  and  1889,  as  they,  and  each  of  them,  had  the  lawful 
right  to  do ;  and  their  decision  on  that  point  being  clearly 
within  their  powers  and  manifestly  correct,  is  final,  and  bind- 
ing upon  the  civil  courts. 

In  all  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  these  General  Confer- 
ences, respecting  the  formulation,  submission,  and  adoption 
of  the  amended  constitution  and  the  revised  confession  of 
faith,  they  each  proceeded  and  acted  within  their  constitu- 
tional and  lawful  powers ;  and  they  having  determined  all 
questions  concerning  them,  it  is  not  within  the  province  or 
power  of  a  civil  court  to  review  or  reverse  their  decisions. 

Indeed  this  court  feels  called  upon  to  say,  in  view  of  all 
the  evidence  and  the  law  of  the  case,  that  this  Church  has 
done  its  work  in  these  matters  in  not  only  a  lawful  but  Chris- 


14 

tian  manner,  and  with  a  degree  of  care,  wisdom,  and  correct- 
ness commendable  to  the  churches  of  the  world. 

The  defendants,  with  Bishop  Wright  and  his  other  follow- 
ers, having  withdrawn  from  the  Church,  and  their  names 
having  since  been  stricken  from  the  rolls  of  membership 
thereof,  they,  the  defendants,  have  no  rightful  claim  to  the 
property  involved  in  this  litigation,  but  the  plaintiffs  are 
entitled  to  the  same  for  the  uses  of  the  Church,  and  the  de- 
cree of  this  court  to  that  effect  is  accordingly  entered  in  favor 
of  the  plaintiffs. 


4 


si 


» 


PHOTOMOUNT 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 

©AY4.OR0  BROS.  Iii«. 
SyrMus*,  N.  Y.         i 
Sleaton,  CM.         < 

*                                DATE  DUE                               1 

r  \# 

- 

^^^ 

X3  ^"^ 

HIGHSMITHfl 

45230 

Printed 
In  USA 

1  1012  00043  6206 


i»%^i 


*^'^ 


•^ 


